ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 23-01-2024 Heard the parties.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the award dated 02.02.2011 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sitamarhi in a case bearing Case No. PL (Misc.) 02 of 2011.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year

2004 partition of family property was done between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 by way of Panch and accordingly Panchnama dated 30.09.2004 was prepared and the same was accepted by sisters and mother of petitioner No. 1. Based on the aforesaid Panchnama, petitioner No. 1 made an application for creation of Jamabandi of land which he got through Panchnama and a case bearing No. 171 of 2004-05 was instituted. In the said case respondent No. 02 raised objection against the said application but the same was rejected by the Circle Officer, Sheohar vide his order dated 04.01.2005. The Circle Officer allowed the petitioner’s application for creation of Jamabandi and subsequently Jamabandi was created in favour of petitioner No.1 on the lands which he obtained through Panchnama. After creation of Jamabandi, the respondent No. 2 filed Mutation Appeal No. 02 of 2005 before the DCLR against the order dated 04.01.2005 which was allowed. Against the order of the DCLR, the petitioner preferred Mutation Revision, which is still pending.

4. It has also been alleged that the respondent No.

2 has earlier tried to grab the property of the petitioner on the basis of the forged Yadast Batwara dated 20.05.2000 by way of filing Title Suit No. 241 of 2009 in the Court of learned Sub- Judge, 1st, Sitamarhi. The Said Title Suit is in respect of property bearing RS Khata No. 131, RSP No. 5151, in which respondent No. 2 is claiming 10 dec. of land. It is further alleged that respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 intended to grab the ancestral property falling in the share of petitioner No.2 by getting legal sanction by filing petition dated 05.01.2011 bearing PL (Misc) 02 of 2011 in the Court of Permanent Lok Adalat, Sitamarhi and in the said petition, a forged document related to Yadast Batwara dated 20.05.2000 was relied upon by the respondent No. 2 and 3 which bears no legal sanctity. In the said petition, it was prayed for the partition of whole property in three parts i.e. one each in favour of her two minor sons and one part in favour of respondent No. 2 and 3 jointly.

5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in the said petition of the respondent before the Permanent Lok Adalat, the petitioners were not made as parties deliberately to conceal the relevant facts and on this score alone, the Lok Adalat ought to have dismissed the said application on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.

6. It has further been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that on 02.02.2011, a compromise petition was filed by the parties in PL (Misc)- 02/2011 in which it has been stated that the parties agreed to divide the said property in three parts and accordingly 3 Schedules were prepared showing the intention of parties in respect of division of the aforesaid property and the said compromise petition bears a Yadasht Batwara dated 02.05.2000 which is forged and was never in existence but the Lok Adalat accepted the same and prepared the award dated 02.02.2011 without noticing the petitioner No. 1.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the Judgments of this Court passed in the cases of Shri Niwas Rai Vs. Mahendra Rai reported in 2014 1 PLJR 476, Raj Mangal Raut Ramani Vs. State of Bihar passed in L.P.A. No. 277 of 2017, Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2016 1 PLJR 935 and Lallan Pandey And Anr. Vs. State Of Bihar And Ors. reported in 2023 6 BLJ 205 and has submitted that no partition suit can be filed in a permanent Lok Adalat directly as the permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the civil disputes for which applications are being filed directly